Mercy for Animals has started a petition on Change.org that helps you tell poultry-processing corporation Perdue to stop abusing its chickens. I'm no fan of manipulatively spooky incidental music in hidden-camera videos, but watching workers not just stomp on live chicken heads but grind them under their boots and hearing other workers describe the health problems chickens get from Perdue's breeding methods is convincing enough. So much for all the good PR Perdue got from reducing antibiotic use! Perdue fired one worker after this video got publicity, but that just makes him the Lt. Calley of animal abusers, and workers don't abuse animals because they all wear Snidely Whiplash mustaches -- they abuse animals because they're under a lot of pressure to produce. So, even though the petition calls for a number of good works that Perdue could undertake -- including slower breeding, more space, and more humane killing methods -- I wish it had also called for hiring more workers and training them better. But you can hijack the "I'm signing because" box to add that.
Meanwhile, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell the U.S. Justice Department to investigate whether ExxonMobil unlawfully misled the public on climate change, then the Union of Concerned Scientists still helps you do that. As you may recall, we have evidence that ExxonMobil knew about the disastrous effects of climate change in the late 1980s, yet still embarked on an expensive and decades-long campaign of climate change disinformation. You'd think, knowing what was coming, they'd have spent all that money weaning themselves off oil and onto renewables, but of course doing so would have made it much harder to redistribute wealth upward to executives. I bet ExxonMobil executives would say they obfuscated on climate change out of their "duty to shareholders," but usually by "shareholders" they mean "executives like me," and one wonders if they ever put the matter honestly to their shareholders, because shareholders are pretty good people -- certainly better than the executives who use them as a human shield. Perhaps we can answer questions like these in court.